Guy and Doll have agreed that Guy will act as Doll directs, and that Doll is entitled to use force or punishment to get Guy to do as she directs if he ever demurs or falls short. Guy is aware that Doll will sometimes use him sexually and punish him for her pleasure; indeed, that is one reason why he chose to submit to her. As Doll is not entitled to violate any legitimate claims of third parties, she does not have the authority to direct Guy to do such things. Both Guy and Doll understand that. But they sometimes play a game in which Doll orders Guy to do such things, to provide Doll with a pretext for punishing Guy severely when he (rightly) refuses to carry out her orders.
Guy has contracted to be Doll’s slave. Such contracts are familiar from fiction and from history; and some people may have familiarity with them in contemporary life. Yet it has been common since the Enlightenment for philosophers to argue that such contracts are impossible. Recent philosophers have used the same. . .